Digital BW, The Print

My intention in starting this thread was not to inspire a Photoshop 
discussion. Not even! Lets go back to the images and technique.  
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
Do to the recent uneasiness about the archival nature of Black and white 
inkjet prints, I simply provided a link showing a prime example of an 
alternative method  for digital black and white (with a known life expectancy 
that is acceptable in most circles)! Since there are so many who wish to 
replicate what they used to get in the darkroom (air dried silver fiber 
prints) I thought the link might stimulate or inspire some to explore 
lightjet printing of black and white images. I really don't think anyone can 
say that David Osborns negatives really sucked until Photoshop fixed them! I 
think its pretty obvious that the guy is a very skilled photographer. I think 
the guy just didn't want to deal with having to make 20x60's in the darkroom 
so he found a better way! LIGHTJET. I would also say he probably did not want 
to risk an unknown output such as inkjet or he would have gone that way. He 
was playing it safe I'd say with a guaranteed 30 -50years using Fuji Crystal 
Archive paper. These types of lightjet prints on the semi matte paper are the 
most comparable to Silver fiber prints. In my opinion.
I would call David Osborn a photographer, Photoshop or not. 
This seems like a very reasonable way to make large prints, Ink printing 
isn't the whole digital world.
From the tone of this tread I assume that most of you thought the images 
where to good to be unmanipulated? All I can say is lots of exhibit 
photgraphers do darkroom work with a similar look( Michael Kenna comes to 
mind) So why does photoshop have to make the images good in this case. I 
doubt his buyers really care one way or another....
Steve Meyers


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]